The Intersection of Marketing + Technology

I was not waiting on line at 5am for the iPad like some other people around the US. It's a device without a niche for me right now.

Think what you will of it, however, the technology behind the iPad and similar devices is helping to redefine categories that have had relatively little innovation in centuries.

Take the book industry. Now, I love my Kindle and it's innovative enough, but it uses the same paradigm as a print book. It works for what I need (quick consumption and ease of travel), but it is limited.

The experience of the Kindle is okay. It could be smoother and reminds me of what Blackberrys were like about 5 years ago. Get your hands on a new Blackberry and you'll see what I am talking about. It's smooth and easier to use yet still functional. The Kindle will catch up quickly.

Now, think about what publishing can look like on a device that senses when you tilt it or when you touch it. Have a look:

What do you get when you take a webcam, a piece of paper and some cool 3D animation? You get augmented reality (AR). This is relatively new though it's been experimented with for a couple of years at least. In short, AR is the combination of objects in the real world being combined with virtual objects using a webcam and some programming.

Sounds pretty cool eh? You have to see it to know what I'm talking about.

The symbols that it uses can be printed on anything; paper, t-shirts, ads, etc.

Any time you want to make a physical connection with virtual objects

Allows interaction and engagement with printed pieces

People are working on using mobile device cameras to do this while you're on the go

It's just plain cool. Give it a try!

BMW looks at using AR to diagnose issues and help mechanics be more efficient

Turn the real world into a huge video game

Really bring Second Life into first life

This is pretty cutting edge, so not every company is going to be comfortable with it. The hardware barrier is pretty low (webcam) so this can hit a mass audience. It's great for presenting things when in conceptual mode (architecture, cars, etc.) as well as adding interactivity to existing items.

My advice is try one of the models above and think about the possibilities in your business. The hardest part may be to stop thinking of them.

[Hat tip to the Fleishman-Hillard digital team in St. Louis for putting this back on my radar screen.]

Interruptive advertising is one of the building blocks of most traditional marketer's communications plan. TV ads break up 20 minutes of actual programming (unless you Tivo your content). Radio ads moan on and on while you trudge through traffic. Pre-roll ads on web video make you wait patiently for 15 to 60 seconds. Everywhere you turn, you are accosted by advertising.

There are consequences to doing this, especially in the digital space. I enjoyed reading this article on the New York Times site points to a Burst Media survey of 2,600 online video viewers. In the survey responses, 53.6% of people recalled seeing some type of interruption-based advertising (pre-, mid- and post-roll). 78.4% of those people said that in-stream ads are intrusive with 50.4% saying the ads disrupt their time. (This means the subtraction of value, not the addition of value.)

The in-stream, or mid-roll, ads (a trend that is rapidly growing and is particularly user un-friendly) had the most negative reaction by far. 50.7% of respondents said to have stopped watching the video when they saw an mid-roll ad and 15.3% were so angry they left the site all together.

While people ages 18-24 are slightly more likely to stay through a mid-roll ad, the worst finding for advertisers was around the recall of the ads. Only 21.4% of people who recalled the ad said they pay more attention to mid-roll versus other ad formats.

If you're a content creator, does it really make sense to run mid-roll ads if people are abandoning your content? You have to ask yourself where you place your value, ad dollars or content distribution. Moreover, if 1/3 of people leave your site altogether, you're hurting revenue from sponsors and other advertisers not to mention your reputation.

From an advertiser's view point of view, why would you do this? The negative impression of the ad's placement is weighing on your brand. If your goal is to have people take action or remember your product/service, this is definitely going to work.

There are, however, better options. Create a "skin" for the video where your branding surrounds the content, but doesn't encroach on it. Align your ads with content that makes sense and is in your audience's focus. The worst thing you can do is take a 30 and plop it in the path of web users who are trying to get the content they value. You're not adding anything to that situation. The 30 second spot is dead online as well (just in case you were wondering).

What other advice would you give to advertisers lining up for these placements? What ads have you appreciated or received value from and how have they been placed?

This all leads up to a post I have been working on for a while that will premiere tomorrow. "3 is the new 30".

What a way to start a podcast series! I've been doing a lot of video lately and have been wanting to do a weekly audio podcast series for a long time. I've been biding my time for the right situation to present itself to get out of the gates with a bang and that's just what happened recently.

In the first ever episode in my weekly audio podcast series, I had the pleasure of interviewing Scott Beck the Marketing Director for Harley-Davidson Motorcycles (thanks to Sean Scott for setting this up). Harley recently partnered with agency Carmichael Lynch in Minneapolis to create a new type of widget. They threw out the conventions and created something remarkable. The widget, timed to launch with the Sturgis motorscycle festival (attended by over 500,000 riders), broadcasts live streaming video from the festival grounds to Harley fans around the world. It includes audio and really gives people a window into the whole experience.

I was able to talk with Scott and Jon on my phone, but could see and hear them in the widget. So very, very cool. I hope you like episode one and please bear with me as audio editing is really new to me. These podcasts will never go over 26 minutes in length (the average commute time in the US) so you can download, consume and start implementing in short order.

Okay marketers. Let's say you are prepping to run an ad campaign for a mass, commodity good and you have to rank your ad buys over the top content networks. How would you rank the following and what metrics would you use? Go ahead and try it.

AOL

Ebay

Fox Interactive Media

Google

Microsoft

MSN/Windows Live

Yahoo

Would you have ranked them by total audience knowing that you could reach a more robust and accurate subset with targeted ads? Or, would you have opted for total page views thinking that the more pages served the more eyeballs will take a look? Better yet, did you opt for the new Nielsen-suggested standard of time on site knowing that time leads to engagement and better eyeballs? You may be surprised at how different these results are.

Source: Nielsen/NetRatings,U.S., home and work, May 2007

Take a look at the chart to the left. The first chart shows each network based on total unique audience with Google in the lead. It is followed by Yahoo, MSN/Live, Microsoft and AOL. Remember AOL's last-place position in this chart for later. There is a gap of roughly 20 million people between first and last place.

But you may not have wanted to go with total audience, instead you want to use page views as your metric. Well, in that case Yahoo is your network of choice. Yahoo is followed by Fox (including MySpace), Google, MSN/Live and EBay. In this case there is a roughly 20 billion page view difference.

However, you may be detered by page views and total audience and find yourself looking at total time on the site. In that case AOL comes out of nowhere to take a firm lead (remember they were last in total audience). They're followed by Yahoo, MSN/Live, Fox and Google who drops like a stone. There is a difference of roughly 17.5 billion minutes between AOL and Google.

So what the heck does this mean to you? Let's look at each network to see what the metrics tell us.

AOL - The AOL network is where to go if you want people who spend a lot of time there, but they are not generating a lot of page views in that time. There are an estimated 90 million people in the audience.

Ebay - EBay pops up only in the page views metric as you would expect. Each listing is a page and visitors crank through them quickly. Total audience is lower as is the time on the site.

Fox Interactive Media - The Fox network, while not large, generates quite a few page views and stays engaged with that content longer when you consider its size. I think MySpace has a large part to do with that summary. as people stay engaged, but constantly churn through pages of friends as well as adding content.

Google - Google is still the king of search so if you're looking for SEM and you want the volume, this is your stop (according to 2007 April figures from Nielsen//NetRatings, Google has the largest share of U.S. based web searches at 55.2% (Google Acquisitions), Yahoo is second at 21.9%, MSN is third at 9.0%, AOL is fourth at 5.4%, and Ask is fifth at 1.8%). The downside of Google is that people are coming for a specific task and jumping off hence the low engagement times and high audience.

Microsoft - The Microsoft audience is large as you would expect, but that's where the company's advantage ends. They don't show up on the total time on site or the page views metrics.

MSN/Windows Live - MSN represents Microsoft's consumer facing entity and their Live search function. Live has been picking up some momentum in total search volume, but they've a long way to go to catch Google. MSN comfortably sits in the middle of the pack on almost every point. They dip below when it comes to page views. It's a large audience that spends an average amount of time on fewer pages.

Yahoo - Yahoo comes out the best of any network when you look at each metric. They have the second largest audience, the most number of page views and the second most time in minutes. This should be an attractive combination to marketers especially in targeted display ads. Yahoo still lags behind Google for SEM where there is still a 30%+ gap.

In the end, no matter who you are or who you are marketing to, it comes down to a few key factors:

Find your audience. If they're not using Google then you're wasting your money

Relevance is key. Making hyper-targeted ad buys will help make sure relevance is there and waste is minimal

Nobody likes iterruption. The last thing I want is to have my visit to a network interrupted by your ad. Give me some value and be relevant to what I am looking at. If I'm in the auto repair section, don't offer me camera equipment.

I saw a very interesting article over at TechCrunch today about a company who is purported to be reviving the online banner ad. The company, Tailgate, is allowing e-commerce to happen inside a banner ad. You can see an example of this here.

Here are my questions/issues with this. While I think this is a good idea in theory it has inherent downfalls, not the least of which is the fact that banner ads are not very effective and these particular ads could pose a security risk, or a perception thereof, for consumers. I've learned to tune ads out no matter what site I am on and a lot of other people have as well. Here's my quick take:

[Feed readers click through to the post to see the video]

The Good:

Capture impulse buys on complementary sites

Let people see your top sellers before coming to your site

The Bad:

Banner ads are mostly irrelevant for consumers

Banners are interruption based (which is hopefully on its way out)

People block banners out of their consciousness when surfing with a goal in mind

There is a lack of trust (phishing and other scams)

Also there is a lack of perceived security (no matter how secure it is)

No way to identify authenticity of the offer or the host

How much better would the same advertiser money be spent to reach out to influential brand evangelists and/or bloggers? Why not join in the conversation instead of trying to interrupt it?

Overall, I think people still have some trust issues with e-commerce in general that need to be overcome before something like this has a real chance of making an impact. I'd be interested to hear from the company behind it on how they plan on reassuring people that their information is safe.

What do you think? Would you ever submit your credit card info through a banner?

I was surfing around this morning and did a search for Omnicom's Cutwater agency (creators of the new RayBan commercials). I followed the link through to a nice story on AdWeek.

I hadn't checked out the AdWeek site for a while so I clicked through the home page and saw a surround ad campaign for Discovery Channel. The surround features three independent ads of different sizes all working together. This particular one was a clever play on the Discover Channel show Deadliest Catch where Alaskan fishermen risk their lives in the Bering Sea (yes I do watch this show, it's addictive).

What caught my eye, however, was the image the page was using as a background. I almost clicked away, then I said to myself, "Holy crap, they actually tiled the client logo as a background". This Web -2.0 tactic (yes, negative 2.0) is oh so very 1995. I know because I did it in 1995 when it was cool. Most importantly, it adds zero benefit to the campaign.

So anyway, here you have this (mostly) well thought out ad campaign in the right place for the audience and it's all thrown out the window with this ill-advised mistake. What would you say if you were Discovery and you saw this? Would you be impressed to see your logo tiled as a background or would you be upset that it looks completely amateur?

Now, I am not one to propose a problem without a solution so here are a couple options that the agency who created this could have proposed to add some real value to the campaign and still stay in the same parameters of the medium.

The series Deadliest Catch is all about the challenges of the sea. It follows a few fishing crews in Alaska and shows just how dangerous their job is. The sea (and the weather in general) is almost a character in their story. They fight storms and the sky is always ominous. So in a couple of minutes I went to iStockphoto and pulled an image of a threatening sky. Now imagine this image as the background. It sets the mood right?

Similary, I went to Discovery.com and visited the show's page there. A number of wallpaper files are available for download. So why not pick one of those images like you see below? They're accessible, dynamic, tied into the show and also set the mood.

If you were creating an ad for the print version of AdWeek would you tile your client's logo to take up the white space? Absolutely not! My point is, when you're creating online ad campaigns, ask yourself what you can do to make each implementation unique and help move through the clutter. How can you use the medium to convey the message and engage the audience for that brief exposure? Well thought out online ads go beyond the IAB standards and use the full inventory to tell one congruent story and, in the end, engage more potential customers.

I see shockingly few really good online campaigns. The medium is limitless so why are people still applying traditional thinking? Here is a litmus test. If you can send your online ads to a magazine and have them run as is, you need to SERIOUSLY re-think what you're doing online. Reach out, engage, tell a story and give people a reason to click.

A while back on my trip to NYC I met Mark Goren (this photo is of CK and Mark at that event). We hit it off and have a lot in common with where we are in life and our interests in marketing. I was honored when he asked me to do a guest post on his blog in part of his Question A Day series.

Without further ado, please head over to Mark's blog and check out my take on the answer to the question "What does interaction rate tell me about the impact of my rich media campaign?". Enjoy!

I've been writing this post in my head for some time now and it's high time I post it. There is a lot of hype around the new video service Joost. The problem is, after using it pretty extensively, I don't get the hype. I can't stomach the kool aid. The product has a contemporary, web2ish look about it, it has some good content in the channels, but some things aren't sitting right with me. Let me explain.

First and foremost, can anybody tell me why the service is delivered through a standalone application. This drives me insane. The technology driving the web has evolved enough that making people download another application to watch the content seems absurd. The chances of me installing the application are pretty good, but like many, many other apps I will soon forget about it. My web browser is becoming my hub for content. If you're not delivering through the browser you're losing me as a customer. Lots of companies are delivering through the brower. YouTube or course, Jalipo and blip just to name a couple, but Joost lacks the social networking options those sites have.

Second, the content is good, but I can get most of it on time-shifted TV through Tivo or through other video sharing sites or by going direct to the provider. Joost is signing deals with those content providers, but I think they're trying to position themselves as the cable company when they're really just a MTV. They're aggregating other produced content, but unlike MTV they're not adding new value. The content providers see Joost as another distribution point in their digital strategy, but it's not the only player. Where is the user generated content? Users are creating high quality content that, for the moment, seems to be locked out of Joost's model.

Third, the quality of the video in Joost is not that great. It's certainly not TV quality and is right on par with YouTube (see my first question). They're alleging themselves the new TV for the web. Why are they recreating the TV? This is the Internet. The TV model has issues. Issues which could be solved with some new thinking. This is just a re-package of what we've seen to date. Yes it looks shiny, but like many things web2.0 looks can be deceiving. My big question is how will I get Joost to the TV when I want it?

Finally, Joost is relying on a passé advertising models which users may be less inclined to accept. Paul McEnany and I seem to have BSP on this one. Technology allows for innovation. Innovation in content and delivery. It allows ad networks to get creative and add real value to their clients. So what is Joost doing? They're pre-rolling 15 and 30 second spots in front of video clips. Didn't they get the memo about the death of the 30 second spot?

We're still early in Joost's history and there is certainly room to improve. Room I hope they take advantage of before somebody else knocks them out. Don't take my word for it though, see for yourself. I still have four tokens that will go to the first four people to email me. What are your thoughts? Anybody have another opinion?

[Update: All of the tokens are gone. People are definitely interested. I'll be anxious to see their take.]

There are some projects that you work on in your professional career that you invest yourself in a little bit more. You take them extra personally. You dedicate yourself to the project outcome being a success. The journey is rewarding and paved with tears, hard lessons and moments of pure, inspired innovation.

I had one such project launch a couple of days ago and I'd love to share it with you now. Disclaimer - I work for DigiKnow, an interactive marketer in Cleveland, OH, and one of our sweet spots is sports and entertainment. We've built sites and systems for some great sports teams over the years.

About a year ago, we came up with an idea for revolutionary venue marketing product and were extremely fortunate to partner with the Cleveland Cavaliers to get it done. The marketing team at the Cavs was fantastic and as driven as we were to come up with the best possible solution. The final product is a patent pending marketing system called SeatServer.

The product, located here http://seatviewer.cavs.nba.com, combines Flash and AJAX technologies to deliver a smooth, realistic experience. The solution shows real video views from each seat section, allows the team to add an up-sell message in each section (e.g.; "Did you know that for $10 more you could sit in the lower bowl?"), incorporates the team schedule and a lot more (check out the interactive 360 video in the seating chart pull down). On top of that, the team can showcase premium seating options and give you personalized directions from your front door all the way to your seat.

Sports teams are certainly becoming more aware of the fact that the experience is more than just what happens inside the arena. It starts when you come online, extends as you leave your house and concludes when they get back home. The more value teams can provide throughout that process the more successful their online efforts will become.

I hate going to the grocery store. It's not that I mind spending my Sunday there. I don't even mind the crowds. What I do mind is the archaic way stores are set up. It seems to me that grocers are permanently stuck in the 1950's. My particular problem is that I don't have an expectation yet of where certain products are in the store so when I look where I think they should be I get frustrated and leave.

To add to my frustration, I usually go into the store prepared. I have a list ordered by how the store is set up (keep in mind this only works in one store as each has a different layout) and I do this to avoid walking 15 miles per shopping trip going from one side to the other. Here are a couple of examples so you know what I am talking about.

I use artificial sweetener in my coffee. When I go to the coffee aisle to pick up a bag of beans I expect that the sweetener would be close at hand. But no. I have to walk to the baking aisle to get it. So a) it doesn't make sense to me and b) it wastes my time.

If you are fixing an italian dish and you need sliced tomatoes and tomato sauce they are in two different places. One in the "soup/suace" aisle and the other in the "Italian section.

I know that selling shelf space is a big way grocers make money. Companies pay for space and there are more products than ever competing for attention. But, at some point the needs of consumers needs to be taken into account. Why not spread items into places that make sense? This wouldn't eliminate space, just spread it around. If I do get frustrated and leave, I am less willing to come back. I am willing, however, to skip using the manufacturers product.

Now, think about this in terms of your web presence. Do you make people go find the information they want or do you bring it to them? If you are selling a product, do you show the user all of the accessories, warranties, photos and related products on one page within a single click or are they on their own? Are you linking in related content at each place it makes sense or are you keeping things corralled into neat piles?

Providing customers with this service is easier to do online than anywhere else. Space is easily gained and there are analytics programs that can be applied to make sure people are not leaving your site pre-conversion. If they are leaving, you can easily react to make sure they are finding what they need. Think like your customer (or simply ask them what they think). When they click, what do they expect to see? Are you meeting their expectations?

One of my favorite trend watching sites is PopURLs. The information is timely and relevant and I have the ability to control a lot of the content on the page. One content area on the page shows the top 18 photos on Flickr at the moment (see a screen capture below). As you'll notice, the 18 images starting from left to right are from Flickr. The last three spots in each row are actually part of an ad for Hammer and Coop, a 70s action parody from BMW's Mini brand.

So what makes this kind of environmental advertising work?

It's obviously custom-made for this site and shows the brand cares enough to tailor the creative

It interrupts the user in an unexpected way to be more memorable

It's in line with the tone of the site and the audience

Here is the Mini example:

By comparison, here is the normal way this area looks...blatant and easily ignored:

If you are an advertiser (or marketing company creating ads) wouldn't you love for people to see your work and say "damn, that's nicely done and cool"? I was looking through my Twittersphere and came across a link to the Pandora music service. In order to bring music to people for free, the site serves up advertising to users.

Pandora allows advertisers to leverage technology and design to enhance the user experience. The page load that I saw was a very nicely done Altoids Chocolate surround. This combines their campaign which feeds in user messages to the advertising across the ad networks that Altoids uses.

Here is an example of a non-branded and branded surround. Pretty clear choice eh?

Kudos to the Altoids ad team. Not only is the page more aesthetically pleasing, but it combines user-generated content to add value and connect on a more personal level with consumers.

The user generated advertising trend is hot. Attempts to make consumer created ads pay off is hit and miss, backfiring for some companies and mildly succeeding for others. Still, the best form of user generated advertising comes from people who really love you and your brand, not from a contest or other gimmick. So with all of the hype, does this tactic really create new customers and in the end sell more of what you have to offer? Usually not.

While the focus has been placed on the ads themselves, we're missing an opportunity to really engage users and create more loyal customers through User Controlled Advertising (UCA). I pitched this back in 2005 and the world wasn't ready for it, but now seems like the right time to put it out there again. UCA would allow publishers or advertising networks to serve up ads (created by ad professionals) to users and allow those users to decide what they want to see.

UCA choices could be based on any of the following:

Type or category of ad ("See more ads like this")

Brand-specific ads ("See more ads from this sponsor")

Ability to easily scroll through ads to see what's available

Choose not to see an ad or sponsor

Here is an example of how this would physically manifest itself in the ad enclosure:

This creates new opportunities and solves some key online advertising problems. First, if users are choosing to see your ads, they're going to be more likely to click through or buy offline. They're opting in to your message. Second, using this system there is less waste on people who don't care about you (sorry, they are out there)...why should you pay to show them an ad they'll never click? Third, if you combine this system with user preferences, personalization and reporting and you have created the most powerful, accurate, waste-free, relevant ad system on earth. These technologies are all out there, but nobody has put them together. Fourth, the system serves as a vehicle to extend the ad beyond the typical banner. It offers real estate for promotions and other personalized engagement techniques to connect with the right message and the right time.

Imagine a user comes on to your local newspaper web site (where you advertise). Based on their registration criteria the system knows they may be interested in you, so when they hit the home page there is your ad. If they like you they select to see more ads from you. The site then serves your ads at a higher weighting through the system giving you more impressions. The user wants to see your message and the chance they'll click through is increased. Conversely, if another person logs on and sees your ad and doesn't have an interest in you, they can click to an ad they do like. They get what they want to see and you don't waste impressions serving irrelevant ads.

Taking this a step further, RSS driven ads could be used as part of this new ad system. The messages in ads can be updated by the advertiser in real-time and not necessitate new creative. For example, say you have a campaign to welcome users to your site. You could create an ad format that would take their head shot and name and create a custom ad to thank them for signing up. It would be integrated into the system and allow them to share the ad with friends to get them to sign up. How much more relevant can you get?

The idea here is to give users control over the context and content, not the creative. It forms a mutually beneficial partnership and could have a major impact in the world of online advertising.

enoI keep seeing these UPS whiteboard ads on TV showing how UPS saves you time, hassle, etc. They seem to be geared toward small business and are interestingly shot. The site combines the same actor in video with the same music (oddly enough by the Postal Service). It's pretty big on the bandwidth side and took me a while to use it even on a fast cable connection.

The site combines information on products and services, a way to create your own whiteboard and links to the TV spots. The site does a good job of showing the breadth of what UPS can offer from corporate shipping all the way down to the occasional shipper.

It's a neat idea, executed well and should be interesting to watch what comes of it. Oddly enough the music in the commercial is by the Postal Service.

Google is promoting the upcoming release of the Dan Brown best-seller 'The DaVinci Code' through a personalized Google Module. The promotion gets the user into the movie by utilizing a series of puzzles and challenges.